Does anyone play chess?
David Cordover
Is this the case, or does anyone ever visit a chess tournament.
I would be interested in the strength of those of you who play tournaments.
Martin Karl Unger
: Most of the stuff on here looks like it comes from non chess players.
Is this an attempt at FLAME BAITING ???
: Is this the case, or does anyone ever visit a chess tournament.
Sure, I sometimes visit a chess tournament,
and sometimes I even participate in a chess tournament.
: I would be interested in the strength of those of you who play tournaments.
My austrian Elo number is about 1800. I consider myself
to be an average chess player.
Hans Berliner
th is net have never played in a sanctioned tournament, nor read a chess book
from cover to cover. It boggles my mind how anyone who is not at least an IM
could think his opinion on the outcome of a World Championship match is worth
mouthing off about.
But then, on the other hand, only millionaires play baseball. ;-)
Lazaro Munoz
sorts of "good" Tournament "titled" players, Eric Schiller, Gavin Crawley,
etc. And some not so "good" tournament players like myself, USCF OTB 1926.
However what's the point? If someone has a question, regardless of their
experience level, they have as much a right to ask it and you do to
complain about it.
---
"How does the horsey go again..."
Laz
l...@pipeline.com
David Trestor
I guess if *some* people had their way, you'd only be able to post if you're a
certified USCF Expert or better! SHEESH....
Get real!! EVERYBODY is entitled to express their opinions here!
Robert Hyatt
Lazaro Munoz <l...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
>Not to flame things up, but I have seen submissions (recently) from all
>sorts of "good" Tournament "titled" players, Eric Schiller, Gavin Crawley,
>etc. And some not so "good" tournament players like myself, USCF OTB 1926.
>However what's the point? If someone has a question, regardless of their
>experience level, they have as much a right to ask it and you do to
>complain about it.
>
Was this in response to Hans Berliner's comment? I took what he said
in his post as a comment about weak chess players joining into a discussion
about the WCC match. I agree that questions are always welcome, but
that sometimes comments come in that you might just take seriously
unless you see the rating of the originator. Sort of like what we
see on ICC all the time, several of us are discussing Crafty's play,
when suddenly you realize you've been "had" and have been discussion
some aspect of chess that is beyond a 1300 player. (sort of what went
on in the "DO COMPUTERS CHEAT...." thread.)
In academic circles, we usually sign things with name and title,
like "Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Computer and
Information Sciences" which gives some "context" in which to take
comments. Here in R.G.C. we aren't so formal (ie, it would be good
to say something like Robert. M. Hyatt, IM, FIDE 2414 [*NO* I am not
an IM... nor do I have a FIDE rating]) which leads to misunderstandings
from time to time.
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Steven Rix
In article <3sulq5$c...@pipe4.nyc.pipeline.com>, l...@nyc.pipeline.com (Lazaro Munoz) writes:
->Not to flame things up, but I have seen submissions (recently) from all
->sorts of "good" Tournament "titled" players, Eric Schiller, Gavin Crawley,
->etc. And some not so "good" tournament players like myself, USCF OTB 1926.
->However what's the point? If someone has a question, regardless of their
->experience level, they have as much a right to ask it and you do to
->complain about it.
Well, if I am 2200 and want to ask about the Two Knight's Defence (say),
I'd like to know whether the advice I receive is from a strong player or
a novice ... there's no easy way to tell just from the name, unless it's
a very famous one like Schiller or Watson. Besides, I'd imagine that if
you'd spent XX years of your life getting good enough at chess to earn an
IM title, you'd like to attach it to your name, just as you would probably
call yourself Dr Munoz if you had a PhD!
--
Steve Rix
S....@ed.ac.uk http://www.chemeng.ed.ac.uk/people/steve/
Robert Hyatt
Roger Watson <CDF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>hy...@willis.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote: Sort of like what we
>>see on ICC all the time, several of us are discussing Crafty's play,
>>when suddenly you realize you've been "had" and have been discussion
>>some aspect of chess that is beyond a 1300 player.
>
>disturb anyone . Does the term "elitist" come to mind. Oh ! I'm
>sorry - back to the closet !! :-)
>
>Regards,
>
> RW
>
> "There's nothing wrong with being 2nd guessed.
> At least you were there 1st." PLK 12/94
>
Sorry to give "that" impression. The issue I was thinking of is
where these "whisper" sessions get into heated debate about a
position where two or three are agreeing that black is crushing
white, and then they discover that the player that likes white is
a 1500 player, while they are 2200+.
I've tried to answer every query on ICC, and have never had a
problem with questions or queries. However, the "guest" accounts
generate about 99% of the problems there. How would it "fly" if
I jumped into the middle of several GM's trying to adjudicate a
game at a tournament? I would quickly be "found out" because of
my name, but on ICC, names mean nothing. Hope that clears up
my comment. Feel free to comment all you want, however it would
certainly be appreciated if you announce your rating with your
comments. I do. Others do if they aren't well-known on ICC.
I hope you can see the "problem."
Roger Watson
Benjamin J. Tilly
hy...@willis.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
[...]
> Sorry to give "that" impression. The issue I was thinking of is
> where these "whisper" sessions get into heated debate about a
> position where two or three are agreeing that black is crushing
> white, and then they discover that the player that likes white is
> a 1500 player, while they are 2200+.
>
When somebody makes a comment I often "finger" them just for fun. If
you do develop that habit then the debate will cut off before getting
really heated.
You do not even have to say that much, merely "fingering those
whispering shows something interesting...". And yes, and as a not that
good of a player I prefer to make my comments questions (such as "Why
not this?"..."Oh.").
> I've tried to answer every query on ICC, and have never had a
> problem with questions or queries. However, the "guest" accounts
> generate about 99% of the problems there.
I am not sure of how this causes a problem. Guests are not allowed to
(at least they could not long ago) whisper or kibitz. They can only
communicate with say and tell...
> How would it "fly" if
> I jumped into the middle of several GM's trying to adjudicate a
> game at a tournament? I would quickly be "found out" because of
> my name, but on ICC, names mean nothing. Hope that clears up
> my comment. Feel free to comment all you want, however it would
> certainly be appreciated if you announce your rating with your
> comments. I do. Others do if they aren't well-known on ICC.
> I hope you can see the "problem."
And what does "well-known" mean? For instance on Usenet I am well-known
on several newsgroups. When I show up on a new newsgroup for a while
then usually I find after a while that people from there mention to me
that they have seen my posts elsewhere. So in that sense I am quite
well-known on Usenet. However only a small portion of the net has
actually heard of me.
The analogy to ICC is in the fact that ICC naturally splits into a
number of groups depending on factors such as when they sign on, rating
level, the speed of game they like, channels that they like to listen
to, ect. I am known to several of these groups, but not to most of
them. Am I "well-known" on ICC?
Ben Tilly (aka Mathwhiz if anybody wants to check.)
Robert Hyatt
Benjamin J. Tilly <Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <3t546g$2...@pelham.cis.uab.edu>
>hy...@willis.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>
>[...]
>> Sorry to give "that" impression. The issue I was thinking of is
>> where these "whisper" sessions get into heated debate about a
>> position where two or three are agreeing that black is crushing
>> white, and then they discover that the player that likes white is
>> a 1500 player, while they are 2200+.
>>
>When somebody makes a comment I often "finger" them just for fun. If
>you do develop that habit then the debate will cut off before getting
>really heated.
>
>You do not even have to say that much, merely "fingering those
>whispering shows something interesting...". And yes, and as a not that
>good of a player I prefer to make my comments questions (such as "Why
>not this?"..."Oh.").
Me too.
On ICC, *very few* are "well known" due to the "handle" nature
of operation and the fact that many players (particularly stronger
players for some reason) put *nothing* in their notes. (yes,
everyone knows "roman" but how about senior, and for a while
buzzo, etc.)
In OTB chess, many are well-known, and either their photograph
or their name has been seen by many. ICC is somewhat different,
in that it is a "faceless" (and sometimes "nameless") meeting
place.
I, too, often "finger" people, but when watching something
interesting, with 10-20 observers, it's can be tedious to
do.
Masterword
descriptive name such as SNOB. Then we normal people will know not to
interfere. Or better yet, create your own language, like the Catholic
Church with its Latin or Ancient Egyptian priests with their hieroglyphs,
ensuring that the common man or woman will never penetrate the secrets of
your cult.
Joe Stella
maste...@aol.com (Masterword) writes:
Are you one of those people who are always asking "Why do us AOL'ers always
get treated like second class citizens on the Internet"?
It's not a question of being a "snob". Highly ranked players got that way
by devoting a *lot* of time and energy to the game. We are not being fair
to them if we expect them to go out of their way to answer our "silly"
questions (yes, about 99.9% of our questions are silly by their standards).
If you want "expert" answers to your questions, you can correspond with IM's
or GM's who will analyze positions/games for you, for a reasonable fee. This
is just the same as going to an investment analyst, a lawyer, or a doctor
for advice. You don't expect them to give you free advice, do you? Why do
you expect top chessplayers to do it?
Joe S.
Ian Kennedy
>like "Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Computer and
>Information Sciences" which gives some "context" in which to take
>comments. Here in R.G.C. we aren't so formal (ie, it would be good
>to say something like Robert. M. Hyatt, IM, FIDE 2414 [*NO* I am not
>an IM... nor do I have a FIDE rating]) which leads to misunderstandings
>from time to time.
I am delighted to hear that in rgc that 'we aren't so formal' and I hope
that it stays that way. Yes it is interesting to see the 'background' or
'relevant credentials' of people but it would be very dangerous to use
such information to ignore or dismiss contributions from certain people.
For example I have a science degree and have written a chess program; I
have quite a good theoretical knowledge of chess but I am crap across the
board (but only because I usually blunder a lot!). Do you think I qualify
to be taken seriously in, say, discussing the reasons why Fritz recently
beat Deep Thought?* Equally well, your contributions in the field of
computer chess are of course well known to me but that doesn't mean that
you are right all the time! Nor would you make such a claim, I'm sure.
As a final point, although the infamous 'Computers violate chess laws'
has gone on far too long, repeated itself ad nauseum and had far too many
personal insults in it, the thread has raised many very important points
***even though*** some of the contributors may not have been great
experts on the subjects they were discussing.
Ian Kennedy
Bachelor of Science Hons. (Astronomy)
ex. University College, London
Commercial computer programmer
(Astronomy being almost completely irrelevant to chess of course, except
when you guys start comparing the number of possible chess positions with
the number of particles in the Universe!)
PS I believe that the title of Professor as awarded in the States has a
different meaning from that in the UK. Another possible source of
'misunderstanding'!:-)))
* Who is qualified to discuss it? Have you noticed that chess magazines
are full of analysis of Kasparov games by IM's and entry level GMs? These
guys are rated 200-300 Elo below Kasparov but their analysis (admittedly
done at leisure, not under pressure, checked with a computer (!)etc) is
considered to be of interest!
Ed Seedhouse
> Yes it is interesting to see the 'background' or
>'relevant credentials' of people but it would be very dangerous to use
>such information to ignore or dismiss contributions from certain people.
>For example I have a science degree and have written a chess program; I
>have quite a good theoretical knowledge of chess but I am crap across the
>board (but only because I usually blunder a lot!). Do you think I qualify
>to be taken seriously in, say, discussing the reasons why Fritz recently
>beat Deep Thought?
Sure. But probably not discussing the reasons why Kasparov beat
Short. Not that I am so qualified either.
I post my rating so that people may have some data that might suggest
how trustworthy my purely chess opinions might be. A 1600 player will
think I must be right because my rating is so high, but a 2500 player
will think I'm probably wrong because my rating is so low. Both are
probably right.
Ed Seedhouse
President, Victoria Chess Club.
CFC Rating: 2100
Ralph Dubisch
>Why don't you higher ranked players create your own newsgroup with a
>descriptive name such as SNOB. Then we normal people will know not to
>interfere. Or better yet, create your own language, like the Catholic
>Church with its Latin or Ancient Egyptian priests with their hieroglyphs,
>ensuring that the common man or woman will never penetrate the secrets of
>your cult.
What an excellent idea! That way the weakies wouldn't get any benefits from
interacting with the good players, and the better players would exchange
more and more information, thereby getting better and better, distancing
themselves from the rest of the herd.
Ideally, this would lead to two separate bell curves in the rating systems,
with the "real" players all bunched up at the top, and the random "normal"
people scattered about at the bottom. Then we could do pairings in the
separate groups and award appropriate prizes, like stuffed animals, to the
people in the bottom group, reserving large cash awards and appearance money
for those in the top group.
Anyone in favor of this separation by abilities should e-mail
maste...@aol.com directly to offer support and assistance. To get
started, I suggest that weak players should boycott posts by anyone who
might be better at chess than themselves, and if they find they are reading
something that might prove educational, they should immediately quit and
watch some T.V. to numb the brain and erase the offending material from
their memory.
P.S. For those linguistically challenged or otherwise unable to handle naked
irony, please add ":)" to any of the preceding as needed.
Jay McKeen
>In article <3t8tuc$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, maste...@aol.com says...
>>Why don't you higher ranked players create your own newsgroup with a
>>descriptive name such as SNOB. Then we normal people will know not to
>>interfere. Or better yet, create your own language, like the Catholic
>What an excellent idea! That way the weakies wouldn't get any benefits from
>interacting with the good players, and the better players would exchange
Let me repeat a suggestion I made during the "GMA" years:
The formation of the ABCDE Players Association: ABCDEPA
Requirements: Never having permitted his/her rating to break 2000.
Special titles: International Grandmother, Life Patzer, International
Master of Watercolor Composition.
Special sanctions taken against talented players. No prizes at the top;
$20,000 for 1st Class E.
The leveling of America is taking place in education anyway
(heterogeneous education, a.k.a. rewarding mediocrity, gansta' rap -
phonetic spelling!, "you are what you wear"), so let's do our part in chess.
Down with accomplishment! Burn the books!